From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parker v. J.M. Smucker Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 21, 2013
No. CV 13-00690-JCS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)

Opinion

No. CV 13-00690-JCS

03-21-2013

DIANA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.M. SMUCKER CO., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP Kenneth K. Lee (Cal. Bar No. 264296) Kate T. Spelman (Cal. Bar No. 269109) JENNER & BLOCK LLP Dean N. Panos (applying pro hac vice ) Attorneys for J.M. Smucker Co. Timothy G. Blood Attorneys for Plaintiff


JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Kenneth K. Lee (Cal. Bar No. 264296)
Kate T. Spelman (Cal. Bar No. 269109)
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Dean N. Panos (applying pro hac vice)
Attorneys for J.M. Smucker Co.

STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Diana Parker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and Defendant the J.M. Smucker Company, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint");

WHEREAS, Defendant was served with the Complaint on March 1, 2013;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant's response to the Complaint would be due on March 22, 2013;

WHEREAS Plaintiff has agreed to allow Defendant an additional 30 days to respond to the Complaint, making Defendant's response due on April 22, 2013; and

WHEREAS the extension of time will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order;

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), that Defendant shall have an additional 30 days to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint, up to and including April 22, 2013.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

_______________

By: Kenneth K. Lee

Attorneys for Defendant

BLOOD, HURST & O'REARDON, LLP

_______________

By: Timothy G. Blood

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ATTESTATION

I, Kenneth K. Lee, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file the Stipulation Enlarging Time to Respond to Complaint. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from signatory Timothy G. Blood.

Judge Joseph C. Spero


Summaries of

Parker v. J.M. Smucker Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 21, 2013
No. CV 13-00690-JCS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)
Case details for

Parker v. J.M. Smucker Co.

Case Details

Full title:DIANA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 21, 2013

Citations

No. CV 13-00690-JCS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)

Citing Cases

Randolph v. J.M. Smucker Co.

Defendant disputes this method of ascertaining class membership, alleging that retailers and distributors do…

Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co.

As a result, "[t]his is not a preempted theory." See Parker v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 13-0690, 2013 WL…